256 MB VRAM is a joke this day and age!
It shouldn't even be present on any of the 15" models.
512 MB VRAM for the entry models and 1 GB for the more expensive ones.
Especially now when Starcraft II is getting closer...

256 MB VRAM is a joke this day and age!
It shouldn't even be present on any of the 15" models.
512 MB VRAM for the entry models and 1 GB for the more expensive ones.
Especially now when Starcraft II is getting closer...

WHAT DID WE LEARN?
At least when it comes to 3D accelerated games, unless you are connecting your MacBook Pro to an external 30" Cinema display running at 2560x1600, the model with 256MB of video memory will run GPU intensives apps just as fast as the model with 512MB of video memory.

Other graphics intensive apps we tried included Motion 4, OpenGL Extensions Viewer, and SmallLuxGPU OpenCL Benchmark. None of them indicated an advantage for the 512MB VRAM over the 256MB VRAM.

But before you reject the idea of paying the extra $200 for the top model, remember that you are not just paying for the extra video memory. In the case of the Core i7 MacBook Pro 15" model, you are also getting a 5% higher Core i7 clock speed and 33% more L3 cache which translates to 9% faster running of CPU intensive apps

WHAT DID WE LEARN?
At least when it comes to 3D accelerated games, unless you are connecting your MacBook Pro to an external 30" Cinema display running at 2560x1600, the model with 256MB of video memory will run GPU intensives apps just as fast as the model with 512MB of video memory.

Other graphics intensive apps we tried included Motion 4, OpenGL Extensions Viewer, and SmallLuxGPU OpenCL Benchmark. None of them indicated an advantage for the 512MB VRAM over the 256MB VRAM.

But before you reject the idea of paying the extra $200 for the top model, remember that you are not just paying for the extra video memory. In the case of the Core i7 MacBook Pro 15" model, you are also getting a 5% higher Core i7 clock speed and 33% more L3 cache which translates to 9% faster running of CPU intensive apps

Thanks for a great reply: It is the same old thing with these "I can get a PC with more high-end devices and with Win7 for cheaper than a Mac". Well, they better have all that horsepower to run anything Windows. Simple test, see if their 5 or 6 year old PC can run Win 7, and I will match that against my 5 year old iBook G4 with Leopard.

WHAT DID WE LEARN?
At least when it comes to 3D accelerated games, unless you are connecting your MacBook Pro to an external 30" Cinema display running at 2560x1600, the model with 256MB of video memory will run GPU intensives apps just as fast as the model with 512MB of video memory.

Other graphics intensive apps we tried included Motion 4, OpenGL Extensions Viewer, and SmallLuxGPU OpenCL Benchmark. None of them indicated an advantage for the 512MB VRAM over the 256MB VRAM.

But before you reject the idea of paying the extra $200 for the top model, remember that you are not just paying for the extra video memory. In the case of the Core i7 MacBook Pro 15" model, you are also getting a 5% higher Core i7 clock speed and 33% more L3 cache which translates to 9% faster running of CPU intensive apps

When I look at the bars there on Bare Feats' test I see that orange bar showing that the MBP with 256 MB VRAM is quite a lot worse than the 512 MB ones when it comes the lowest FPS.

Also I'm quite sure it depends on what you do with the computer. If you just have a browser and a few windows open the difference in VRAM won't be noticed, but when the number of windows on the screen start to grow I'm pretty sure it matters.

Here's a dialog from Photoshop running on a three years old MacBook Pro that also has 256 MB VRAM:

Also, in the upcoming game Starcraft II there are four major graphic settings that involves video RAM:

Low: 128 MB
Medium: 256 MB
High: 512 MB
Ultra: 1 GB

I guess the number of people playing games on their MBP are relatively small, but still.

So, while it won't be a big issue in all cases it *can* be an issue in some and it's at least not a disadvantage with more VRAM, right?.
Since many of the cheap laptops from other manufacturers (some cost 1/3 the price of the entry level MBP 15") offer a dedicated graphics card with 1 GB VRAM I don't see Apple's reasoning here.

When I look at the bars there on Bare Feats' test I see that orange bar showing that the MBP with 256 MB VRAM is quite a lot worse than the 512 MB ones when it comes the lowest FPS.

Also I'm quite sure it depends on what you do with the computer. If you just have a browser and a few windows open the difference in VRAM won't be noticed, but when the number of windows on the screen start to grow I'm pretty sure it matters.

Here's a dialog from Photoshop running on a three years old MacBook Pro that also has 256 MB VRAM:

Also, in the upcoming game Starcraft II there are four major graphic settings that involves video RAM:

Low: 128 MB
Medium: 256 MB
High: 512 MB
Ultra: 1 GB

I guess the number of people playing games on their MBP are relatively small, but still.

So, while it won't be a big issue in all cases it *can* be an issue in some and it's at least not a disadvantage with more VRAM, right?.
Since many of the cheap laptops from other manufacturers (some cost 1/3 the price of the entry level MBP 15") offer a dedicated graphics card with 1 GB VRAM I don't see Apple's reasoning here.

Look at it again, it says this: Dark grey bar in graph is 1920x1200 and light grey bar is 2560x1600. (Results are in Frames Per Second; ORANGE bar means SLOWEST.)

That orange showing its the slowest (256 Vram) is when it is on a 30" Cinema display running at 2560x1600, the dark gray ones are the regular 1920X1200, and THOSE show not only is 256 vram equal to 512vram, it shows sometimes the 256vram has MORE frames per second.
Obviously personally i am going to get 512 jsut cause more is better and thats what i plan on getting...BUT when the poster said what he said about apple needing to step it up and that 256/512 is small time and old , i had to show the facts showing that he doesnt know what hes talking about.

Look at it again, it says this: Dark grey bar in graph is 1920x1200 and light grey bar is 2560x1600. (Results are in Frames Per Second; ORANGE bar means SLOWEST.)

That orange showing its the slowest (256 Vram) is when it is on a 30" Cinema display running at 2560x1600, the dark gray ones are the regular 1920X1200, and THOSE show not only is 256 vram equal to 512vram, it shows sometimes the 256vram has MORE frames per second.
Obviously personally i am going to get 512 jsut cause more is better and thats what i plan on getting...BUT when the poster said what he said about apple needing to step it up and that 256/512 is small time and old , i had to show the facts showing that he doesnt know what hes talking about.

Yes, exactly. On the 256 MB one the lowest FPS get a lot worse (when running in 2560 x 1600) than on the other two with with 512 MB. Also in on X-Plane test there's 10 FPS difference between the 256 MB and 512 MB. On the ET:QW test the 256 MB is 0,2 FPS better and on the Halo test it's 0,9. That tests that 256 MB winds feels more like a coincidence.

What is it you mean I don't understand correctly in the Bare Feats test?

If I don't know what I'm talking about and if VRAM isn't that important, how do you say about the other two topics I brought up: Starcraft II and Photoshop?

Apple do need to step i up!
Running displays with 2560 x 1600 pixels is getting more common every day and seeing the results one get with 256 MB means it doesn't belong in a laptop released 2010 that costs as much as the MBP. That's what I think at least.

Yes, exactly. On the 256 MB one the lowest FPS get a lot worse (when running in 2560 x 1600) than on the other two with with 512 MB. Also in on X-Plane test there's 10 FPS difference between the 256 MB and 512 MB. On the ET:QW test the 256 MB is 0,2 FPS better and on the Halo test it's 0,9. That tests that 256 MB winds feels more like a coincidence.

What is it you mean I don't understand correctly in the Bare Feats test?

If I don't know what I'm talking about and if VRAM isn't that important, how do you say about the other two topics I brought up: Starcraft II and Photoshop?

Apple do need to step i up!
Running displays with 2560 x 1600 pixels is getting more common every day and seeing the results one get with 256 MB means it doesn't belong in a laptop released 2010 that costs as much as the MBP. That's what I think at least.

Apple has a lot of other stuff to catch up on before Vram, like admitting their form factor is wrong for the heat their laptops create. Maybe more and more people are using 30" displays at 2560 x 1600, but that still is probably 5-10% of the people that own a macbook pro. When has Apple EVER done anything for the little guy? They make their laptops specifically in a bland, nothing to special, medium performance way. The most extreme thing Apple has ever done with their macbook pro's is put the i7 in some, and even then they cant handle it because how hot they are "reportedly" getting.

So basically if you expect apple to offer anything but the low end range to the medium end range (example, even their SSD's arent the fastest and best that they could have been), then your looking at the wrong company.

Im not trying to argue that apple should stay this way, i cant stand apple, i cant stand that you pay 2500 for average hardware specs, but thats Apple for you, and yelling "step it up, 256 is so 2001!" on a forum isnt gonna change them.

Apple has a lot of other stuff to catch up on before Vram, like admitting their form factor is wrong for the heat their laptops create. Maybe more and more people are using 30" displays at 2560 x 1600, but that still is probably 5-10% of the people that own a macbook pro. When has Apple EVER done anything for the little guy? They make their laptops specifically in a bland, nothing to special, medium performance way. The most extreme thing Apple has ever done with their macbook pro's is put the i7 in some, and even then they cant handle it because how hot they are "reportedly" getting.

So basically if you expect apple to offer anything but the low end range to the medium end range (example, even their SSD's arent the fastest and best that they could have been), then your looking at the wrong company.

Im not trying to argue that apple should stay this way, i cant stand apple, i cant stand that you pay 2500 for average hardware specs, but thats Apple for you, and yelling "step it up, 256 is so 2001!" on a forum isnt gonna change them.

Of course there other things Apple can improve.
I don't have much experience with the i7 MacBook Pro's when it comes to heat, but we've bought a few at work so I'll probably have an opinion soon.

”yelling "step it up, 256 is so 2001!" on a forum isnt gonna change them.”

Of course not and that's not something I'd expect. But letting other people know about this issue isn't a bad thing. I have also contacted Apple and been speaking to the ”Executive Relations EMEA” at Apple about this and the issues with with the yellow tone and gray line on the display of the 27" iMac. For what it's worth she said she'd pass on my opinions to engineering.

Of course there other things Apple can improve.
I don't have much experience with the i7 MacBook Pro's when it comes to heat, but we've bought a few at work so I'll probably have an opinion soon.

yelling "step it up, 256 is so 2001!" on a forum isnt gonna change them.

Of course not and that's not something I'd expect. But letting other people know about this issue isn't a bad thing. I have also contacted Apple and been speaking to the Executive Relations EMEA at Apple about this and the issues with with the yellow tone and gray line on the display of the 27" iMac. For what it's worth she said she'd pass on my opinions to engineering.

Well thats good. If someone can whisper in their ear to change things up, im sure we all would be happy with the result.
I would love it if once you did get some experience with the i7 Macbook Pro's you could tell me your opinions on their temps/heat.
I hope to buy one, but the thing currently holding me back is the reports (by PC authority) and lack of anyone on here giving their experience with their new MBP i7's, is the heat issue. I hear the old MBP's were ruff to have on your lap, and that article says the new ones are even worse. Im not trusting the article but its raised a doubt...so someone that has experience with them, getting info from them would be great.

I am a manager mainly on China legal consultation service and you know I mainly help international friends protect their business and rights in China. It is very very lucky that one customer in US tell us the place! Thank you so much,! I like it! I will introduce to my other international customers too!

HP IO Proxy and Apple's own qmasterd seem to trigger the dedicated GPU on my machine as well. how stupid is that!

What do you guys think are the chances that apple will release updates for their graphics changing software to improve it? Is Apple the type of company to try to fix things or they will leave it how it is? I would think they would try to update the software as much as possible considering it kills the battery usage (4-5 instead of 6-8 hours) and how long a charge lasts is like what apple holds dear.

What do you guys think are the chances that apple will release updates for their graphics changing software to improve it?

100%

Quote:

Is Apple the type of company to try to fix things or they will leave it how it is?

They will leave it how it is until they have a fix for it. We'll likely never hear anything from Apple about it until there is an update for it. it might come in 10.6.4 thus requiring users to notice the difference or being a bullet point in 10.64. bug fix and optimization list. Or it could be a separate update, like the did with the zero day launch of these new MBPs.

Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"

They will leave it how it is until they have a fix for it. We'll likely never hear anything from Apple about it until there is an update for it. it might come in 10.6.4 thus requiring users to notice the difference or being a bullet point in 10.64. bug fix and optimization list. Or it could be a separate update, like the did with the zero day launch of these new MBPs.

Im VERY happy to hear that. 4-5 hours of battery life is amazing to me, cause all laptops iv ever own/used have been typical windows dell/hp/toshiba laptops that have a 2 hours battery.

So 4-5 is epic, BUT...when your told "7-8 hours" by Apple and this is the MBP generation i plan on buying and keeping for years and years...getting the generation where they have the worst battery charge isnt ideal.

Im VERY happy to hear that. 4-5 hours of battery life is amazing to me, cause all laptops iv ever own/used have been typical windows dell/hp/toshiba laptops that have a 2 hours battery.

So 4-5 is epic, BUT...when your told "7-8 hours" by Apple and this is the MBP generation i plan on buying and keeping for years and years...getting the generation where they have the worst battery charge isnt ideal.

The test is based on WiFi browsing so if you turn off other apps you should get that. That time also excludes plugins as running Flash will surely drive your power usage up and battery life down. I think the screen brightness is for 50%, but don't quote me on that, and while using Safari which is more power efficient than 3rd-party browsers.

Unfortunately, the average user doesn't know or care about ideal test setups, only that they only get x-many hours less than advertised. Even if it's better than other machines and Apple uses a more fair testing scenerio that other OEMs there is still a long way to go before customers can not worry about using their notebooks all day. The iPad is the first machine I've used without worrying about preserving the juice.

Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"

The test is based on WiFi browsing so if you turn off other apps you should get that. That time also excludes plugins as running Flash will surely drive your power usage up and battery life down. I think the screen brightness is for 50%, but don't quote me on that, and while using Safari which is more power efficient than 3rd-party browsers.

Unfortunately, the average user doesn't know or care about ideal test setups, only that they only get x-many hours less than advertised. Even if it's better than other machines and Apple uses a more fair testing scenerio that other OEMs there is still a long way to go before customers can not worry about using their notebooks all day. The iPad is the first machine I've used without worrying about preserving the juice.

Yeah i mean i get that. Their conditions are just that, conditions. And im not some huge battery charge nut or anything, 99% of my laptop usage will be by a outlet, and 85% in my room and plugged in (so not using the battery).

BUT having a new technology (graphics switching) actually be a negative to battery charge time (in the sense that it turns on and leaves on the nvidia when it should be using integrated GPU) is something i definitely want minimalized as much as it can be. Hearing that its VERY likely that apple will release fixes (at some point or another) is very very good to hear.

BUT having a new technology (graphics switching) actually be a negative to battery charge time (in the sense that it turns on and leaves on the nvidia when it should be using integrated GPU) is something i definitely want minimalized as much as it can be.

The one feature I would like to see is the ability to disable the dGPU altogether while using the battery. They have a single switch to prevent the IGP from turning on. To me, this seems like an odd oversight.

Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"

The one feature I would like to see is the ability to disable the dGPU altogether while using the battery. They have a single switch to prevent the IGP from turning on. To me, this seems like an odd oversight.

I completely agree. I would think of all things you would want to force the computer into using the power SAVER gpu...not force it into using the power USER gpu. I hope (but doubt) they will give the option to turn off the Nvidia GPU and keep the integrated on only option.

I completely agree. I would think of all things you would want to force the computer into using the power SAVER gpu...not force it into using the power USER gpu. I hope (but doubt) they will give the option to turn off the Nvidia GPU and keep the integrated on only option.

It is pathetic Apple didn't include ability to switch graphics cards. But some guy can. I'm thankful this guy developed this though!

My MBP will be going back. Yellow screen at the bottom third of screen, weak wifi, dropping connections, and 4-hour battery. I'm very, very disappointed. I guess all the QA is on friggin' iPads and not computers. Oh I forgot the best part: it randomly freezes HARD sometimes. As in, requiring reboot and losing all work. Has happened a few times already. Plenty of people at Macrumors and elsewhere have seen this too and it appears to affect all new 2010 MBPs.

Very disappointed. I will swap it for a new MBP and hope the issues go away. If not I'll ask to swap to a MacBook. Hopefully then there will be no issues. I hope.

"Overpopulation and climate change are serious shit." Gilsch"I was really curious how they had managed such fine granularity of alienation." addabox

It is pathetic Apple didn't include ability to switch graphics cards. But some guy can. I'm thankful this guy developed this though!

My MBP will be going back. Yellow screen at the bottom third of screen, weak wifi, dropping connections, and 4-hour battery. I'm very, very disappointed. I guess all the QA is on friggin' iPads and not computers. Oh I forgot the best part: it randomly freezes HARD sometimes. As in, requiring reboot and losing all work. Has happened a few times already. Plenty of people at Macrumors and elsewhere have seen this too and it appears to affect all new 2010 MBPs.

Very disappointed. I will swap it for a new MBP and hope the issues go away. If not I'll ask to swap to a MacBook. Hopefully then there will be no issues. I hope.

Lol well your not helping my decision to buy a MBP right now, BUT, all true info is good info. So thanks. Yeah i hope either that guys Beta gets perfected cause idk about putting a beta program like that my (not yet bought) MBP considering i have no experience with OS-X or Apple laptops. Either the beta gets perfected or Apple puts out a update eventually that gives us the option to switch between the 2 GPU's.

Lol well your not helping my decision to buy a MBP right now, BUT, all true info is good info. So thanks. Yeah i hope either that guys Beta gets perfected cause idk about putting a beta program like that my (not yet bought) MBP considering i have no experience with OS-X or Apple laptops. Either the beta gets perfected or Apple puts out a update eventually that gives us the option to switch between the 2 GPU's.

The bottom third of the screen has a yellow tint on nearly all MBP displays as well. \

It's very noticeable in iTunes or Finder looking at the blue interleaved stripes. They aren't even visible on the bottom when viewed head-on.
Battery lasts 4-5 hours too. Not that I was expecting 10 but jeez, at least a bit more than half what they advertise. Yes, everything is off. Full screen brightness, though.

Anyhow. I am probably going to ask for a replacement. Apple is already looking in to it for me. But I am going to BestBuy to look at other MBP displays and see if the yellow tint is "normal". From MacRumors.com threads it seems to be more often than not the case that you'll have yellow tinting at the bottom of the screen. It's been this way for the last several years in fact. I wish I hadn't noticed it. I do graphics stuff though so maybe that is why I noticed it. I probably will end up swapping for a MacBook. If Apple products can't be perfect then I may as well get a cheaper unit.

But the customer service is #1. They are great at least about this stuff. I've sent many Macs in, they've always come back quick and they've taken care of me every time.

"Overpopulation and climate change are serious shit." Gilsch"I was really curious how they had managed such fine granularity of alienation." addabox

The bottom third of the screen has a yellow tint on nearly all MBP displays as well. \

It's very noticeable in iTunes or Finder looking at the blue interleaved stripes. They aren't even visible on the bottom when viewed head-on.
Battery lasts 4-5 hours too. Not that I was expecting 10 but jeez, at least a bit more than half what they advertise. Yes, everything is off. Full screen brightness, though.

Anyhow. I am probably going to ask for a replacement. Apple is already looking in to it for me. But I am going to BestBuy to look at other MBP displays and see if the yellow tint is "normal". From MacRumors.com threads it seems to be more often than not the case that you'll have yellow tinting at the bottom of the screen. It's been this way for the last several years in fact. I wish I hadn't noticed it. I do graphics stuff though so maybe that is why I noticed it. I probably will end up swapping for a MacBook. If Apple products can't be perfect then I may as well get a cheaper unit.

But the customer service is #1. They are great at least about this stuff. I've sent many Macs in, they've always come back quick and they've taken care of me every time.

Wow thats really messed up. Why do people keep saying when asked whats the incentive for paying so much more for a apple? "You get better quality of build" etc...when your telling me that they are known for having messed up screens and are freezing and all that?
Do a lot of people who get MBP's get correctly functioning ones though? I mean if i order a 17" i7, its possible i will get a non yellow, non freezing one? And if i do get one with yellow, is apple good about me shipping it to them and them replacing it or replacing the monitor or something like that?

Wow thats really messed up. Why do people keep saying when asked whats the incentive for paying so much more for a apple? "You get better quality of build" etc...when your telling me that they are known for having messed up screens and are freezing and all that?
Do a lot of people who get MBP's get correctly functioning ones though? I mean if i order a 17" i7, its possible i will get a non yellow, non freezing one? And if i do get one with yellow, is apple good about me shipping it to them and them replacing it or replacing the monitor or something like that?

No one makes a good computer any more.

My wife's PB G4 12" is a tank. It's awesome.

So is my Color Classic. Yeah, that's right. Color Classic. It still works.

No one makes anything good any more it's all just crap. Believe me if you are on the fence get a Mac Nate because their service is better and once you DO get a unit that is free of defects it's no where near PC experience.
#1 reason to get a Mac: no viruses or spyware. That alone would do it for me. As in, you don't have to wonder whether you are getting a virus every second you are on the Internet. #2: OS X is better than Windows and easier. Windows 7 I have not tried yet but I hear it's ok but still I have a hard time believing they managed to copy OS X yet.

That being said, Apple as with all other companies has gone downhill lately with manufacturing quality. But they take care of you. They will replace mine. I will report back on how it goes.

"Overpopulation and climate change are serious shit." Gilsch"I was really curious how they had managed such fine granularity of alienation." addabox

So is my Color Classic. Yeah, that's right. Color Classic. It still works.

No one makes anything good any more it's all just crap. Believe me if you are on the fence get a Mac Nate because their service is better and once you DO get a unit that is free of defects it's no where near PC experience.
#1 reason to get a Mac: no viruses or spyware. That alone would do it for me. As in, you don't have to wonder whether you are getting a virus every second you are on the Internet. #2: OS X is better than Windows and easier. Windows 7 I have not tried yet but I hear it's ok but still I have a hard time believing they managed to copy OS X yet.

That being said, Apple as with all other companies has gone downhill lately with manufacturing quality. But they take care of you. They will replace mine. I will report back on how it goes.

This is all such complete BS. My brand new MBP is faster than your PB is every way, the ppi is higher, the gamut is higher, the viewing angle higher, the brightness higher. There is no comparison. I've had more issues with PBs than MBPs over the years, and since moving to milled chunk of aluminium nothing is more "tank line" in the MBPs.

PS: Show us proof that "nearly all MBP displays" are bad.

Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"

This is all such complete BS. My brand new MBP is faster than your PB is every way, the ppi is higher, the gamut is higher, the viewing angle higher, the brightness higher. There is no comparison. I've had more issues with PBs than MBPs over the years, and since moving to milled chunk of aluminium nothing is more "tank line" in the MBPs.

PS: Show us proof that "nearly all MBP displays" are bad.

Solip I saw it on all the new MBPs at BestBuy. But not on the iMac. It would be hard to show you with a picture of one although people have done it and it's barely visible as a phenomenon. Also people have taken a pic of it and then used the Dropper in Photoshop to see that the color is different. It's real. Perhaps it's something to do with the LED. I definitely love how bright it is though! But the yellow color gradient is really noticeable. I even notice it here with the grey background. Maybe I am just color sensitive?? Again the blue lines in Finder or iTunes are noticeable-they disappear almost at the bottom of the screen. Now, my Gateway 23" LCD does this as well. I don't think it's LED either. But it's a cheap display. Some of the cheap PC laptops didn't have this problem either. Lastly some people that got a replacement ended up satisfied and got it fixed. Many others however went through many units and eventually gave up, never getting one without the yellow.

I know no model will ever have all units be flawless. It's just that this issue has been around for years, ever since the first LED laptop screens. While most buyers probably don't notice or care, some do and it must cost Apple a lot to do returns. Perhaps they found it cheaper to not fix it and just eat the returns? Anyhow I'll report back, as I'm getting a replacement (because of this, wireless dropouts, and most importantly the hard crashing.)

Solip I guess you got lucky with MBPs and I got lucky with PBs, and I agree solip the unibody design is nice! And these new MBPs are FAST! Lastly, I have a feeling NVIDIA bears much responsibility of late for problems too. Remember that other catastrophe a year ago or something where they knew about a problem and didn't tell Apple if I recall right. I wish Apple had gone with ATi. I don't get why they like NVIDIA so much. I have a hunch the hard crashing is the NVIDIA driver and/or the switching between the two cards.

Solip I saw it on all the new MBPs at BestBuy. But not on the iMac. It would be hard to show you with a picture of one although people have done it and it's barely visible as a phenomenon.

Nearly all (or even all) MBPs at a Best Buy is much more probable. If your original statement was anecdotal account of all the MBPs you saw in a store then I apologize as I can't say such a statement is false, but I recall you saying that nearly all MBPs as a blanket statement.

I have a new MBP as well a several people I know and none of them have this issue.

I have no doubt that there are batches that are shipped flawed. This is what happens when you have dozens of companies making components that you have mass produced in millions at several different manufacturing plants. This is really no different than any other CE company out there, save for the very few that test each-and-every finished product coming off the floor but that is unrealistic at the prices Apple charges for a PC.

Quote:

Lastly, I have a feeling NVIDIA bears much responsibility of late for problems too.

I've never been a fan of Nvidia. They tend not to do the amount of testing I prefer from companies I buy from. I waited awhile to see if the 9400M was going to be an issue with the unibody MacBook a few years back specifically because it was Nvidia.

Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"

Really? Seems to me normal people would watch Blu-Ray movies on a large screen entertainment center with a nice surround system, not on a computer.

That likelihood seems to oft get ignored. Blu-ray is great for movies on an HDTV. Blu-ray sales are increasing.

What I don't see any evidence of Blu-ray drive sales on PCs growing quickly or people scraping DVDs and internet-based video to watch Blu-ray on notebook, which account for the majority of PC sales.

Would Apple supporting AACS in Mac OS X be great? Sure, but it's not a deal breaker. Would Apple also selling Blu-ray drives for their Macs despite the cost being at least $500 more than the DVD drive for their notebooks? Sure, but I don't see many buying them and I foresee the same people wanting Blu-ray in Macs then complaining about the cost of a ultra-slim 9.5mm slot-loading Blu-ray drive.

(I won't even get into where I think Apple plans on taking the Mac and why optical drives as a whole are not in their future)

Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"

That likelihood seems to oft get ignored. Blu-ray is great for movies on an HDTV. Blu-ray sales are increasing.

What I don't see any evidence of Blu-ray drive sales on PCs growing quickly or people scraping DVDs and internet-based video to watch Blu-ray on notebook, which account for the majority of PC sales.

Would Apple supporting AACS in Mac OS X be great? Sure, but it's not a deal breaker. Would Apple also selling Blu-ray drives for their Macs despite the cost being at least $500 more than the DVD drive for their notebooks? Sure, but I don't see many buying them and I foresee the same people wanting Blu-ray in Macs then complaining about the cost of a ultra-slim 9.5mm slot-loading Blu-ray drive.

(I won't even get into where I think Apple plans on taking the Mac and why optical drives as a whole are not in their future)

Ha! i agree...blu ray is kinda pointless on a laptop. you need a big screen to enjoy it for all its worth. don't forget about the prices of the actual disk is high too.

I watch most (like 90%) of my movies online via Netflix (even though most are horrible). I see physical media becoming extinct sooner than later...just look at how all the movie companies have signed with netflix to have their dvd's coming out a month later. they are trying what they can to keep physical media alive.

if netflix had there entire library of movies streaming, and all i had to pay was $20-$30 a month, I'd probably wouldnt even make my way to theaters anymore either!

Ha! i agree...blu ray is kinda pointless on a laptop. you need a big screen to enjoy it for all its worth. don't forget about the prices of the actual disk is high too.

I watch most (like 90%) of my movies online via Netflix (even though most are horrible). I see physical media becoming extinct sooner than later...just look at how all the movie companies have signed with netflix to have their dvd's coming out a month later. they are trying what they can to keep physical media alive.

if netflix had there entire library of movies streaming, and all i had to pay was $20-$30 a month, I'd probably wouldnt even make my way to theaters anymore either!

Yeah but thats you, one tech able guy thats on the internet enough to watch movies on his computer. And yeah there are a lot of us out there that can, but the MASS majority is still not on their computers that much, i dont see the majority of 40 and 50 year olds all of a sudden sitting at their computer and watching netflix instant for movies instead of in their recliner infront of their tv. I think dvd's will last a LOT longer than you "get rid of physical media!!" guys want. Also dont forget, the movie company's will fight to keep selling dvds, the dvd player company's will fight to keep selling dvds, and your internet providers are battling in court to charge US all more for using so much more bandwidth cause of our Netflix streaming (also things like multiplayer gaming and torrenting).

So yeah you might wish to pay $30 a month for instant movies and downloadable movies instead of physical media, but your comcast bill will make up for your savings by charging you WAAAY more than you pay now, cause they (internet providers) will most likely eventually win, and be able to either charge you for your higher than average bandwidth usage, or they will just do what some companies are doing now, which is slow your internet speed down when you use a lot of bandwidth.

Also i don't necessarily disagree with the comment that Bluray is pointless on a laptop, but i do feel 1. If im paying $2000+ for a apple laptop, i should get my moneys worth of features. Other computers for much much cheaper come with blu-ray, USB 3.0, etc (we've all read the list before of what apple doesnt have). 2. If i buy a MBP, im gonna get a 17", and with a screen that size, resolution, and hi-def, i think blu-ray would show a marked improvement over DVD.